Get An Extra 20% Off Regatta New Season Arrivals

How many Pixels do you need?

Marlin_owner 16 658 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:04AM
Simple question.

Yeh, pro's might need 12mp to get perfect commercial shots, but does the average Joe need more than 6mp?

If people think this, then where is the market going with the latest camera's?
mlewis 16 1.5k United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:11AM
I like the 34.6 Megapixels I get from scanner!
Hugo 16 649 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:12AM
how long is a peice of string....?

For 6x4 prints then I guess, 6mp will do.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 6:14AM
6mp is enough for most....been scanning all my life and never got a 34mp image....simply because they were never there in the first place.
Doclassie 16 1.1k England
23 Aug 2005 6:18AM
Good question!

I personally am happy with my 6MP. I print my pics at 5"x7.5" which is much lower resolution than 6MP. I display on the web at even less resolution...... A 6MP image will give you a 300dpi A4 print (I think) which is good enough for mags.....

Unless you're routinely printing at much bigger resolutions I don't see why you'd need more.

I've done a couple of A3 prints and really, its hard to see any quality loss.
Hugo 16 649 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:19AM
Surely a 12mp digital compact or phone would allow a great deal of digital zoom without a reduction in quality, thus doing away with optical zoom = smaller, simpler cameras for the consumer and cheaper (with out moving parts as sensor prices fall)?
joolsb 16 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 6:19AM
Well, I simply couldn't do without the 70MP I get from scanned 645 trannies and the resulting grain-free A3 prints...

...but, at a pinch, I'd settle for a 22MP digital back. As long as someone else is paying, of course. Wink
barnowl 16 697
23 Aug 2005 6:26AM
The camera manufacturers will drive the resolution that will be available. There are several compacts that have 7+.
As technology moves on and it becomes cheaper to manufacture high mega-pixel sensors then the pixel count will climb higher whether the buying public want it or not.

6Mp will print just less than A4 at 300dpi. If 12Mp become affordable then I for one will buy one.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
23 Aug 2005 6:29AM
quick question then Jools.

Which image do you think would have the greater quality as a digital print...the 645 (70mp???) trannie scan or the 22mp digital back?
patters 17 1.8k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:40AM
whats the answer? I'm imagininining its exactly the opposite to what I would guess.

Hey everyone, I just uplloaded a pic. can you all quickly pop off and click it for me.

Dazbo 16 115 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:45AM
I suppose the answer is 'it depends on what you are doing with the resulting image'. If you are printing large images, ie A4+ then the more pixels the better (I use an 8mp 350D which gives about 286ppi at A4). Considering most people don't print that big, most 6x4 etc, then 3-4mp will do you. More pixels doesn't necassarilly give you better results, the quality of the CCD/CMOS, optics and technique are just as important.

joolsb 16 27.1k 38 Switzerland
23 Aug 2005 6:46AM
Good question, Keith. Show me a 22MP digital capture at A3 size and then I can make an informed choice Smile

There's a lot of people saying that a 22MP capture is the equivalent of a 6x7 tanny but I'd be interested in the opinion of a pro on this one...

(Lovely fence, this. Really comfortable... Smile )
digicammad 18 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:46AM
6mp is fine for me. I won't upgrade my D70 just because a newer megapixelier version comes along, but when it eventually wears out I won't go out of my way to hang on to 6mp if the norm by then is higher.

Henchard 16 2.7k 1 United Kingdom
23 Aug 2005 6:47AM
I've nicked this straight from Nikon's website.

A digital image (from either a film scanner or a digital camera) is basically a grid of lots of tiny dots called "pixels." Pixel is an abbreviation for "Picture Element." A digital image is usually stated in terms of the number of pixels in the image, this can be expressed several ways. One way is the actual dimensions, such as 2272x1704 pixels. This means that for this particular image there are 2272 vertical columns of pixels and 1704 horizontal rows. A second way to express the number of pixels is the "megapixel" rating. A megapixel is simply the number of pixels in millions of a particular image. For the example above if we multiply 2272 by 1704 we get 3,7951,488 total pixels in the photo. With a little rounding we could call this image a 4 megapixel (4 million pixel) image.

Comparing digital images to film is difficult. Film images are made up of many tiny pieces of silver grain or dye pieces. Since these pieces are not all regular shaped they appear as many little dots, or grain, in the print. Different film types have larger or smaller pieces of grain which makes it hard to compare with digital images which have nice, uniform size and shape picture elements.

The photographic industry in general uses 20 megabytes as a guideline for the amount of image data contained in a 35mm transparency. If you scan a 35mm slide at more than about 20MB you only get larger pieces of film grain and not necessarily more data from the scan. A file size of 18MB comes out to about a 6 megapixel image (18X1000x1000x8 divided by 24 = 6,000,000). Scanning at higher resolutions (or using a higher megapixel camera) gives you the ability to both print a larger image and crop in on a part of an image but you do not get more image detail in a given area from the larger file. Since color negative film has much less detail than slide film we can assume that something less than 6MP would be equal to 35mm color negative film
u08mcb 17 5.8k
23 Aug 2005 6:48AM
Im thinking the scanners are confusing megapixels with megabytes...

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.